Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   A year ago: 19 Hotshot firefighters lose their lives fighting a major wildfire. Politicians took photo-ops. Investigations were conducted. Promises of change. Today: MEH   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 44
    More: Asinine, Southern Arizona, firefighters, safe zone  
•       •       •

3423 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2014 at 4:36 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-28 03:57:49 PM  
Change takes money.
 
2014-06-28 04:39:05 PM  
unions
 
2014-06-28 04:42:08 PM  
Now now. Politicians talk about action but don't DO action. Big difference.
 
2014-06-28 04:43:12 PM  
So more fake internet outrage/activism that's quickly forgotten? What a shock. Someone should have come up with a catchy hashtag then people would still be talking about it, right?
 
2014-06-28 04:44:31 PM  
Seems like the article is saying there has been no changes made because no one knows what went wrong so they can't change it. Since everyone died and the scout was too far back, no one can stop the decision that made them leave the safe zone since no one knows what part of the decision making process lead them to do it. A sad story all around even with nothing that can be learned from it.
 
2014-06-28 04:45:31 PM  
Was the [obvious] tag also destroyed in the blaze?
 
2014-06-28 04:46:18 PM  
FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.
 
GBB
2014-06-28 04:46:29 PM  
www.coverups.com
"It's everything we've come to expect from years of government training."
 
2014-06-28 04:55:54 PM  

HairyNevus: FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.


Okay smart guy, what should wildfire-firefighters do differently?
 
2014-06-28 04:58:21 PM  
Maybe, just maybe, it was a big goddamned fire and it did something totally unexpected, like fire sometimes does. Nature kills us sometimes. It's not even that hard to do.
 
2014-06-28 04:58:59 PM  
Firefighters die in wildfires. The only "change" we could make is to not send smokejumpers out to fight wildfires, then none of them would die.

This was sad, but it happens sometimes. There's not much that can be done, because there was nothing that could be done differently.
 
2014-06-28 05:00:28 PM  

HairyNevus: FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.


Would you propose we act randomly?

When something goes wrong there are generally two things that need to be understood:
            1.) The specific thing that went wrong in that instant and the related immediate cause of the action that was taken that precipitated the 'wrong' thing.
            2.) Anything in the existing decision / preparation process that would have made a terrible result the default result.

19 people dying isn't what went wrong, it is the consequence of what went wrong.

You can't avoid the consequence if you don't know why it happened.
 
2014-06-28 05:01:11 PM  
The lack of clarity about mistakes - and what lessons might be learned - left firefighters with little to go on

Don't they have Porta Pottys?
 
2014-06-28 05:11:26 PM  

dv-ous: HairyNevus: FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.

Okay smart guy, what should wildfire-firefighters do differently?


I apologize, I misunderstood what I was reading. Perhaps I'm a little too cynical if sentences like that go into my head as "Firefighters haven't been able to implement life-saving changes* until government bureaucrats first blame someone" and I don't give it a second thought.

Whatever, it's the Internet.

*the fact that no one knows exactly what changes to make at all was the pertinent issue I missed by a mile.
 
2014-06-28 05:13:14 PM  
Rarely do forest firefighters in Canada die, but from what I understand it's a common occurrence in the US.

I have forest firefighter friends, and I used to work logistics for the crews. I asked one day why the above was true. The reason I got was firefighters are never put in front of a fire in Canada. Guards and firebreaks will be made in front if the fire isn't in danger of reaching the crews, but otherwise they never fight fires face to face.

In the States, firefighters fight face to face. When your opponent is a raging inferno, shiat happens.
 
2014-06-28 05:16:51 PM  
Final three minutes of radio communications from the Yarnell crew


What a firestorm may look like  (Not Yarnell.  Note the "hook" leading into the vortex core starting around 0:50)
What the inside of a firestorm may look like  (Experimental fire with heavier fuel than Yarnell)
 
2014-06-28 05:17:39 PM  
We reviewed this case in a recent wildfire behaviour course that I took through work, and my understanding is that the crew boss made the decision to move his unit from a "safe" position in an already burned area (meaning the fire had already moved through it, and there was no more fuel to burn) through a patch of unburned fuel on their way to the staging area to be re-deployed at another position.  When the boss called in to the supervisor to tell him the plan, the supervisor basically responded "really?  OK, then..." as if to say "wtf?  Why would you do that?"  But instead of telling him to stay in the black, he allowed the crew boss to lead his men through the green.

After they descended behind a ridge, the winds shifted direction and started forcing the fire directly towards them, but their view of the fire's head was now obstructed and they could not see it coming their way.  There was so much radio chatter going on that by the time they realized the fire had changed direction, they had no time to get out of the way.  They had ordered a water bomber to fly over and dump a load on their position, but the aircraft couldn't find them in time.

All 19 of the men had already exceeded their recommended duty times for the month BEFORE they had even been deployed to this fire.  So, fatigue was almost certainly a factor in the poor decision making.  Lack of communication was another factor.

Things to learn from this incident?  Give your firefighters some rest before sending them to a huge incident.  And if you're a supervisor and feel that one of your crew bosses is making a poor decision, let him know that he is making a poor decision.  Sometimes you just have to pull rank and tell people what to do, no matter how experienced they may be.
 
2014-06-28 05:19:03 PM  

TheManofPA: Seems like the article is saying there has been no changes made because no one knows what went wrong so they can't change it. Since everyone died and the scout was too far back, no one can stop the decision that made them leave the safe zone since no one knows what part of the decision making process lead them to do it. A sad story all around even with nothing that can be learned from it.


That is what the article is saying and it's a load of bullcrap. Seriously, 19 experienced crew members committed suicide? That's the conclusion? The problem it seems to me is that the article focuses too much on firefighting tactics and not enough on firefighting strategy. It may very well be that at a tactical level there isn't anything to learn simply because as a tactical matter there was nothing they could have done to save their asses because of the strategic blunders made by their superiors. It's an excellent question as to why they were sent to that position and who made the decision they should even save the town, especially when superiors already knew there was a significant danger of the fire blowing up.

What I smell is a whitewash. People don't want to hold the managers accountable so they will blame the crew, who quite conveniently are dead and can no longer defend themselves.
 
2014-06-28 05:20:08 PM  
Canada wildland firefighters do fight the fires directly.

Instead of carrying fire shelters, they instead rely on always having two escape routes open at all times.

In the US, our guys carry shelters and have one escape route.
 
2014-06-28 05:21:35 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Change takes money.


Done in one.
 
2014-06-28 05:23:29 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Firefighters die in wildfires. The only "change" we could make is to not send smokejumpers out to fight wildfires, then none of them would die.

This was sad, but it happens sometimes. There's not much that can be done, because there was nothing that could be done differently.


These guys were hotshots, not smokejumpers.

Yes, fire fighters die. Being an urban, East-coast fireman I have only an elementary understanding of wildland fire fighting. I have no idea if this was a tragic turn of fate with a "find someone to blame" game going on, or if there were serious violations of established proceedures. If it's the latter, well, the job is dangerous enough without farkups putting guys at unnecessary risk.

The real shame is the games that were played with some of these guys' employment status, which resulted in severely curtailed survivor benefits. As I recall, one of them had worked 40-hour weeks over the course of years and was still classified as "seasonal."
 
2014-06-28 05:23:34 PM  
spoonman:

Things to learn from this incident?  Give your firefighters some rest before sending them to a huge incident.  And if you're a supervisor and feel that one of your crew bosses is making a poor decision, let him know that he is making a poor decision.  Sometimes you just have to pull rank and tell people what to do, no matter how experienced they may be.

Or you can call it what it really is, which is negligent homicide. Management allowed tired, overworked firefighters to go out into the field and then failed to supervise them. Imagine for a second if this had happened in the trucking industry? The trucking business would be sued and fined out of existence.
 
2014-06-28 05:29:07 PM  
The system is so entrenched in it's own survival. So what if a few get turned into crispy critters every once in a while? It beauracracy.  Getting those naysayers to have a voice, not that in the end it matters. Say for that frau that her hubby got fried, and she's looking for some kind of payout, but the agencies say he's a "seasonal" employee, and largely go about their business as normal for them.
 Just like Private Englund, just like Nazis at Nuremburg, and other uncountable times, they're just following orders, and trying to pin it for the lowest ranking person even obliquely involved to take the heat.
Out here in NM it's fire season now, gotta respect what these guys do, helluva lot more respect than cops. Sure cops do a lot of good, but these guys more. That doesn't mean you have to do everything for them, but a nod every once in a while won't hurt.
 
2014-06-28 05:33:33 PM  

worlddan: TheManofPA: Seems like the article is saying there has been no changes made because no one knows what went wrong so they can't change it. Since everyone died and the scout was too far back, no one can stop the decision that made them leave the safe zone since no one knows what part of the decision making process lead them to do it. A sad story all around even with nothing that can be learned from it.

That is what the article is saying and it's a load of bullcrap. Seriously, 19 experienced crew members committed suicide? That's the conclusion? The problem it seems to me is that the article focuses too much on firefighting tactics and not enough on firefighting strategy. It may very well be that at a tactical level there isn't anything to learn simply because as a tactical matter there was nothing they could have done to save their asses because of the strategic blunders made by their superiors. It's an excellent question as to why they were sent to that position and who made the decision they should even save the town, especially when superiors already knew there was a significant danger of the fire blowing up.

What I smell is a whitewash. People don't want to hold the managers accountable so they will blame the crew, who quite conveniently are dead and can no longer defend themselves.


Sounds like you have never worked accident investigation before. Yep always the manager's fault regardless of the facts! Look up one post. Most accidents are a chain of events. Break the chain in just one point and outcomes can change drastically.

Here's your strategic lesson learned: More people. Honestly it seems like everywhere you look there are fewer people doing skilled professions. No one wants to pay for it, provide training, and everyone thinks a new technology can make fewer people more productive. That idea is true in most cases but not all. Sometimes you honest to god need more people.
 
2014-06-28 05:36:06 PM  
If you want to do burglaries without worry of leaving fingerprints, come to CLE.  They got one guy per shift doing forensics, so they don't bother with that sort of evidence.
 
2014-06-28 05:59:20 PM  

studebaker hoch: Final three minutes of radio communications from the Yarnell crew


What a firestorm may look like  (Not Yarnell.  Note the "hook" leading into the vortex core starting around 0:50)
What the inside of a firestorm may look like  (Experimental fire with heavier fuel than Yarnell)


So they told them to stop 'hollering' over the radio as they were being roasted alive? Nice.
 
2014-06-28 06:08:03 PM  

fusillade762: The lack of clarity about mistakes - and what lessons might be learned - left firefighters with little to go on

Don't they have Porta Pottys?


i98.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-28 06:18:52 PM  
Locals are suing for damages.

The same locals that wouldn't pay for a non-volunteer fire department.

The same locals that had a fire right outside their community, according to the mayor himself, who dispatched a fire unit to put it out but didn't have the proper fire equipment to fight it.

The same locals that had grass, underbrush and other flammable materials all over their properties.

Yeah, those locals.
 
2014-06-28 06:30:06 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Locals are suing for damages.

The same locals that wouldn't pay for a non-volunteer fire department.

The same locals that had a fire right outside their community, according to the mayor himself, who dispatched a fire unit to put it out but didn't have the proper fire equipment to fight it.

The same locals that had grass, underbrush and other flammable materials all over their properties.

Yeah, those locals.


Does Rick Perry represent this community?
 
2014-06-28 06:32:42 PM  
 
2014-06-28 07:11:41 PM  

lizyrd: Gyrfalcon: Firefighters die in wildfires. The only "change" we could make is to not send smokejumpers out to fight wildfires, then none of them would die.

This was sad, but it happens sometimes. There's not much that can be done, because there was nothing that could be done differently.

These guys were hotshots, not smokejumpers.

Yes, fire fighters die. Being an urban, East-coast fireman I have only an elementary understanding of wildland fire fighting. I have no idea if this was a tragic turn of fate with a "find someone to blame" game going on, or if there were serious violations of established proceedures. If it's the latter, well, the job is dangerous enough without farkups putting guys at unnecessary risk.

The real shame is the games that were played with some of these guys' employment status, which resulted in severely curtailed survivor benefits. As I recall, one of them had worked 40-hour weeks over the course of years and was still classified as "seasonal."


Either way.

So far, the best I can determine is that it was lack of communications and guys being in a place they shouldn't have been, which is tragic but hardly a serious violation, given how winds shift in fires--they're deadly unpredictable and create their own weather. But you are right about the second paragraph. They do an amazing job under hellish conditions, and should be granted 100% benefits at all times.
 
2014-06-28 07:16:56 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Locals are suing for damages.

The same locals that wouldn't pay for a non-volunteer fire department.

The same locals that had a fire right outside their community, according to the mayor himself, who dispatched a fire unit to put it out but didn't have the proper fire equipment to fight it.

The same locals that had grass, underbrush and other flammable materials all over their properties.

Yeah, those locals.


So republicans
 
2014-06-28 07:20:25 PM  

dv-ous: HairyNevus: FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.

Okay smart guy, what should wildfire-firefighters do differently?


How about there be a stop put to fighting wildfires and let nature "clean house" like it should?  If a bunch of rich assholes insist on living in the wilderness, then fine, but they do so at their own peril.

Fighting these fires is a waste of money and resources.  It's time to admit that there are certain places people are just not going to be able to build, but if they do then they assume the risk.
 
2014-06-28 07:30:39 PM  
www.jonesreport.com

"We will find out who committed this horror, and bring them to justice!"

(the 9/11 hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, financed by saudi Osama Bin Laden)

i.imgur.com

"You're going to Iraq!"
 
2014-06-28 08:20:33 PM  
I like the part where one state government agency, dedicated to safety, fined another state government agency, dedicated to safety, half a million dollars so that they will think about it next time they try to save people with half a million less dollars to do so.
 
2014-06-28 08:32:16 PM  

dv-ous: HairyNevus: FTA: Firefighters in other parts of the country have also been unable to incorporate specific changes prompted by the deadly incident into their training, largely because Arizona investigators have been unable to reach any consensus about fault in the deaths.

Oh, that makes sense. We can't effect any true changes until we've properly pinned the blame. It did happen in America, after all.

Okay smart guy, what should wildfire-firefighters do differently?


Well for one thing communications should be strengthened and ensure that these diverse departments called on for mutual aid can talk and coordinate and that command centers are established to coordinate deployments and consolidate information gathering so those on the front line have more of a chance to know what is going on.  This is already done to a large extent but updating proceedures and equipment to ensure that information is consolidated and coordination is occurring could be examined and improved to avoid units blundering into tragedy like this one.

Two, better intelligence gathering should be done making use of more air assets such as drones or air scouts or increased spotters on the ground are used to make sure the fire is being effectively monitored so when changes occur, it can be detected ASAP and information sent to vulnerable units to try and minimize the risk. Wind shifts can occur rapidly but if you utilize technology and more eyes watching for it so there are less blind spots, that will reduce the risk and allow the command centers to effectively operate.

More effective rest plans so that units are not overtaxed.  This is tough in a fire season with many large fires around various states sucking in air and ground assets and few units wanting to be sidelined by rest schedules that may cost lives and property.  This may cost more money as you may need more seasonal crews available to ensure staffing.  One alternative to make up some of the shortfall if trained units are sidelined is what California does with many inmate fire crews utilizing lower risk inmates in exchange for reduced sentences, better conditions, and enhanced pay (relatively speaking as it may be $1.00 an hour instead of $0.10).

Even if all these changes were implemented, there is no way to reduce all risk outside of letting things burn and focus on evacuations which will lead some to stay and die.

Gary-L:  How about there be a stop put to fighting wildfires and let nature "clean house" like it should?  If a bunch of rich assholes insist on living in the wilderness, then fine, but they do so at their own peril.

Fighting these fires is a waste of money and resources.  It's time to admit that there are certain places people are just not going to be able to build, but if they do then they assume the risk.


The same with people who build along the coast where hurricane'shiat right, or people who live in flood zones, or people who live in earthquake areas, or people who live where it gets cold and there are blizzards or polar vortex? Screw them all, no federal backed insurance, insure privately or assume the risk right? Fire is just one of many hazards that affect a portion of America.  Why should western taxpayers subsidize people who choose to live where hurricanes hit?  If you want one group to be cut off, you have to cut off everyone since risk will vary from place to place from different sources.
 
2014-06-28 08:37:03 PM  

Echo0: worlddan: TheManofPA: Seems like the article is saying there has been no changes made because no one knows what went wrong so they can't change it. Since everyone died and the scout was too far back, no one can stop the decision that made them leave the safe zone since no one knows what part of the decision making process lead them to do it. A sad story all around even with nothing that can be learned from it.

That is what the article is saying and it's a load of bullcrap. Seriously, 19 experienced crew members committed suicide? That's the conclusion? The problem it seems to me is that the article focuses too much on firefighting tactics and not enough on firefighting strategy. It may very well be that at a tactical level there isn't anything to learn simply because as a tactical matter there was nothing they could have done to save their asses because of the strategic blunders made by their superiors. It's an excellent question as to why they were sent to that position and who made the decision they should even save the town, especially when superiors already knew there was a significant danger of the fire blowing up.

What I smell is a whitewash. People don't want to hold the managers accountable so they will blame the crew, who quite conveniently are dead and can no longer defend themselves.

Sounds like you have never worked accident investigation before. Yep always the manager's fault regardless of the facts! Look up one post. Most accidents are a chain of events. Break the chain in just one point and outcomes can change drastically.

Here's your strategic lesson learned: More people. Honestly it seems like everywhere you look there are fewer people doing skilled professions. No one wants to pay for it, provide training, and everyone thinks a new technology can make fewer people more productive. That idea is true in most cases but not all. Sometimes you honest to god need more people.


He's got a point though. Failures in leadership are way too common in this country and should be dealt with by the full extent of the law.
 
2014-06-28 10:26:29 PM  

Gary-L: How about there be a stop put to fighting wildfires and let nature "clean house" like it should? If a bunch of rich assholes insist on living in the wilderness, then fine, but they do so at their own peril.


Yarnell is full of people who are neither rich nor in the wilderness.

As for assholes, check a mirror.
 
2014-06-28 10:43:18 PM  

Daedalus27: Well for one thing communications should be strengthened and ensure that these diverse departments called on for mutual aid can talk and coordinate and that command centers are established to coordinate deployments and consolidate information gathering so those on the front line have more of a chance to know what is going on. This is already done to a large extent but updating proceedures and equipment to ensure that information is consolidated and coordination is occurring could be examined and improved to avoid units blundering into tragedy like this one.

Two, better intelligence gathering should be done making use of more air assets such as drones or air scouts or increased spotters on the ground are used to make sure the fire is being effectively monitored so when changes occur, it can be detected ASAP and information sent to vulnerable units to try and minimize the risk. Wind shifts can occur rapidly but if you utilize technology and more eyes watching for it so there are less blind spots, that will reduce the risk and allow the command centers to effectively operate.

More effective rest plans so that units are not overtaxed. This is tough in a fire season with many large fires around various states sucking in air and ground assets and few units wanting to be sidelined by rest schedules that may cost lives and property. This may cost more money as you may need more seasonal crews available to ensure staffing. One alternative to make up some of the shortfall if trained units are sidelined is what California does with many inmate fire crews utilizing lower risk inmates in exchange for reduced sentences, better conditions, and enhanced pay (relatively speaking as it may be $1.00 an hour instead of $0.10).


All that is variously done in various states. People are acting like this is some kind of across-the-board deficiency of wildfire fighting teams, instead of a horrific yet isolated incident in Arizona.

Of course, tired crews should not be fighting fires, of course, there should be better communications, of course, there should be optimal spotting at all times. That's not always possible, even if you devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to fighting wildfires. The only way to ensure nobody dies in a wildfire--ever--is to never fight them. Fix the immediate causes of the deaths in Arizona, and everyone stop overreacting like this was some kind of systemic issue. It's just not.
 
2014-06-29 12:32:35 AM  
Oops, I misposted eariler.

The "Experimental fire with heavier fuel than Yarnell " link is the view inside a running crown fire.

While intense, it is not a firestorm because it lacks the vortex configuration and high inflow winds.

It is not the same fire as in the first link.
 
2014-06-29 01:24:09 AM  
So they told them to stop 'hollering' over the radio as they were being roasted alive? Nice.

Probably because they were overloading the mics and nobody could understand them, as well as "stepping on" transmissions already in progress. Radios, like anything else, do have their limitations. Whoever was transmitting (Marsh?) was also adrenaline fueled and panicking, so, you know, I'd be hollering too.  Also, IIRC, they were shouting over chainsaws as they attempted to clear a safety zone.

~~

Here's one thing for me (there are many things about this horrific event, but that would result in a dissertation)... hotshots don't generally do structure protection - they're too big numbers-wise (20 ppl if a full crew, 10 per module, plus the Sup), difficult to move fast with their trucks and impossible to move around fast without them. Structure protection goes against the grain of wildland firefighting tactics; that is, working at the head of the fire, which is otherwise a big no-no. 'Shots don't carry pumps to use water, like engines obviously do. That's part of the mystery of why they headed to the ranch - it's not a normal thing to do with a hotshot crew... but since this wasn't your usual hotshot crew, all bets are off, I guess.

There's a theory out there - and only a theory, completely unproven and likely unprovable - that they got a politically-activated request from somewhere up the chain to head to the ranch. If a valid theory, I wonder whose bright idea it was to say "Hey, Marsh, you think you can pop your guys over there to kiss the big landowner's ass and make a show of structure protection?"

We'll never know now; besides, who would admit it with 19 guys dead?


In the US, our guys carry shelters and have one escape route.

What?

Shelters are ALWAYS the very last resort, and never an alternate to an escape route. There is always to be at least one escape route outside of the default one "in the black," so technically always two escape routes... and, as always, the more the better - though that's not always possible. Sometimes you can only find one when you're in steep, rocky, densely covered, crappy country, where the only safety zone is the cleanest-burned (sorry for the language butchery) part of the black.

When training on shelters is done, it's never said outright, but it is made clear that if you are caught in a situation where you have to deploy, you can almost kiss your ass goodbye. If you're lucky enough to be caught somewhere without surrounding fuels to roast you and the terrain works in your favor (where it sure has hell didn't for GM), and have time to improve your deployment spot, you might make it, but it's not likely. Therefore, it's imperative that those in charge try to never put their crews in situations where they'd need to... and when you think of the sheer volume of fires in the Southwest (AZ/NM/NV) and California on a yearly basis, fire management does a pretty good job of it for an inherently dangerous job in a region with a lot of hot, flashy fuels. You don't hear of deployments very often, thank God.
 
2014-06-29 04:32:23 AM  
raptusregaliter:

In the US, our guys carry shelters and have one escape route.

What?

Shelters are ALWAYS the very last resort, and never an alternate to an escape route. There is always to be at least one escape route outside of the default one "in the black," so technically always two escape routes... and, as always, ...


At least one escape route.  With a lookout watching it.  More is more.

I think we should further evaluate what the Canadians are doing right.
 
2014-06-29 01:33:09 PM  
Hahah promises of change? Like what? A special freeze ray that puts out fires?

You fight forest fires, you run the risk of dying.
 
2014-06-29 06:27:14 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Change takes money.


Like they should start putting out fires by dropping pennies nickels and dimes on them?

/them the fires, not them the firefighters
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report